What single thing annoys you most about Civ VI?

[PhilBowles]

In terms of settings, I'm still disappointed that the random map size option available in every previous Civ game has not been enabled.

As far as gameplay is concerned, I still dislike the lack of AI personalities. This became a very engaging element of Civ V to me - learning the civs that were aggressive, which were loyal, which were backstabbers, which disliked certain in-game behaviour and using that to inform diplomacy. Given my nostalgia for earlier Civ games perhaps I should be okay with Civ VI's AIs just being identikit factions with different colours, but I've found it makes it very difficult to stay engaged with the game.

 

[Tarzan737]

Airplanes too slow!! at least double the animation time!

 

[Yavid]

For me it's a few things

1) Warmongering- although long overdo in a civ game can be crushing diplomatically for far to long
2) Everything about air power
3) I HATE the trade system in the game. I would completely overhaul it if I had the know how.

 

[Zaarin]

This became a very engaging element of Civ V to me - learning the civs that were aggressive, which were loyal, which were backstabbers, which disliked certain in-game behaviour and using that to inform diplomacy.

While I can't say agendas contribute to it much, there seems to still be some element of this. For example, I've consistently been backstabbed by Dom Satan and Mvemba, frequently the turn our friendship expires or shortly thereafter. Teddy's done this to me a few times, too. Conversely, despite their agendas, I've found CdM and Cyrus to consistently be loyal friends, ironically.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

While I can't say agendas contribute to it much, there seems to still be some element of this. For example, I've consistently been backstabbed by Dom Satan and Mvemba, frequently the turn our friendship expires or shortly thereafter. Teddy's done this to me a few times, too. Conversely, despite their agendas, I've found CdM and Cyrus to consistently be loyal friends, ironically.

While I'd like this to be true, I'm dubious that there's any inclination for one Civ 6 leader to behave any differently from any other. They just complain about different things.

 

[Zaarin]

While I'd like this to be true, I'm dubious that there's any inclination for one Civ 6 leader to behave any differently from any other. They just complain about different things.

I certainly don't think agendas have any meaningful difference on how different civs play the game, sadly. The trends I've observed could just be bias or coincidence, but at any rate they've more or less held true in the games I've played. I literally restart if I find Dom Satan near my starting location I've been betrayed by him so many times.

 

[PhilBowles]

While I'd like this to be true, I'm dubious that there's any inclination for one Civ 6 leader to behave any differently from any other. They just complain about different things.

That's very much been my experience. Basically anyone will early rush you, everyone tends to dislike you most of the time, and backstabbing is extremely rare once you do get good relations with someone (then again, getting good relations is comparatively rare at the highest difficulties, in part because the game mechanics don't really encourage you to make the effort. Diplomacy is of very little consequence and minor gamey bonuses from alliances don't alter that). Most civs use the same mixes of military units, all exhibit the same expansion behaviour, all will go for any victory type more or less at random etc. The only thing that seems to promote any kind of consistency is civ bonuses: for instance Korea will always be strong in science, not because the Korean AI has any tendency to prioritise it but just because of passive buffs combined with a minor tendency towards focusing on its own uniques. Ditto Kongo and culture.

Agendas seem to have some influence on a civ's diplomatic status with you (and so makes it easier/harder to ally etc.), but that seems to have very little correlation with their actual in-game behaviour. Civs that soundly hate you seem little or no more likely to go to war than those that are simply unfriendly, for instance - you should basically treat anyone you aren't friendly with as an enemy, and be suspicious of civs that have the green icon but no declared friendship as it can change on a whim. And they certainly don't influence the civ's own behaviour - look at Harald and his love of the player who has one trireme because it's bigger than his Industrial Era navy, for instance.

 

[King Rad]

I agree with all the comments about civs who are allies shouldn't be able to declare war against a city state which you are suz of. And with regard to the civ leaders not following their own agendas. Perfect example of both was Teddy attacking a CS on his continent when we were allies and I was the suz of the CS.

With regard to the unit cycling, like many, I turned this off. I changed the shortcut key to "N" [for next] so I can click that to move to the next unit. I also changed the key for next action to "B" [it's usually a build action anyway] and for next city to "C." This way I can simply use my left hand, in one place on the keyboard, to cycle through units, then through build actions [and next turn if nothing left to build] and cycle through cities if I want/need to do so, since the N, B and C buttons all fall under the index, middle and little fingers.

 

[FearSunn]

Firaxis annoys me most. For not fixing issues for months (and years now). For not giving us tools and code to make it possible to fix it ourselves.

 

[cvb]

With regard to the unit cycling, like many, I turned this off. I changed the shortcut key to "N" [...] This way I can simply use my left hand, in one place on the keyboard, to cycle through units, then through build actions [and next turn if nothing left to build] and cycle through cities if I want/need to do so, since the N, B and C buttons all fall under the index, middle and little fingers.

I also noticed, that cvbn are cute keys (strong string) ... still I wonder, why you skipped the ring finger - with this little arrow symbol used to center the screen right on the selected item ...

 

[gunter]

AI having no clue on how to use planes, ships and land units, assuming AI has knowledge of their existence, above all planes.

 

[Tech Osen]

I had an interesting thingie happen in regards to city state suzerain issue.
The Mongols, my allies, attack Brussel which had the Mapuche as suzerain. Not sure if they actually used the CB but the Mapuche declare war on the Mongols which then triggers the alliance and drags me into the war.
My issue is that had the Mongols directly attacked the Mapuche then the alliance wouldn't have triggered since he is the aggressor. This way he forced me into a war.

 

[Naktis]

War...cant have a game without one..roleplay is great but..getting forward settled = war.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Two main things:

1: Being a big naval power is nearly pointless due to boats not being able to capture non-purely coastal cities.

2: Everything just costs WAY TOO MUCH production in general. Building districts should not take like 60 fudging turns.

 

[Tech Osen]

1: Being a big naval power is nearly pointless due to boats not being able to capture non-purely coastal cities.

Battleships have a 3 tile range, 4 with a balloon. Bring along one or two landunits to take the city once the defenses are down.

 

[Art Morte]

This is broad, but late-game dullness would be my answer.

Battleships have a 3 tile range, 4 with a balloon. Bring along one or two landunits to take the city once the defenses are down.

Battleships are so much in the human player's favour that I've more or less stopped using them.

 

[Stringer1313]

It is going to take some self-discipline to choose just one, but I will try: The fact that tall cities provide so little benefit compared to smaller ones bothers me greatly. In my opinion, a single size 16 city requires more effort to create, and should be better than 4 size 4s. This ties into the way districts work, as was touched upon by kryat previously. Districts are the main resource generator in Civ 6, and provide both yields and great people. It is unfortunate that, for example, the Commercial Hub in a tiny town provide pretty much the same amount of gold and Great Merchant points as the Commercial Hub in your capital. There is a tiny bit of synergy for larger cities in that they can place districts together for adjacency bonuses, but this amounts to so little, it is really not worth the effort of getting another 3 population to reap the extra +0.5 adjacency bonus.

There are so many ways they could amend this. Increase the yields for district workers, and make them generate Great People Points. Add/increase synergy bonuses for having a higher population or higher number of districts. Gate off higher tier district buildings based on population. Perhaps create a 4th tier of district building as well, limited to particularly huge cities.

I personally enjoy closely managing a smaller number of cities, and Civ 6, with it's new district and wonder placement mechanics could have been great for that.

Maybe unlock each tier of buildings depending on population? So Tier 1 building at pop 6, tier 2 at pop 9, etc.

 

[Tech Osen]

This is broad, but late-game dullness would be my answer.



Battleships are so much in the human player's favour that I've more or less stopped using them.

That goes for quite a few units.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Having to scroll all the way in to click on a unit instead of selecting the city it's in.

Either that or the movement rules.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Either that or the movement rules.

I like the new movement rules. Much more intuitive to my old grognard brain. Being able to enter a 2 MP hex with 1 MP left drove me nuts in Civ 5.

Now I just need someone to explain to me how desert and tundra can be 1 MP hexes the same as grasslands and plains …